<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>
Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

What’s In A Name? Add “Radical Islam” To The List Of Terms Fox News Obsessively Attacks Obama Administration For Not Using

Reported by Ellen - May 17, 2010 -

Megyn Kelly jumped on the GOP bandwagon Friday (5/14/10) and attacked Attorney General Eric Holder for his refusal to blame “radical Islam” for the Times Square bomb. Kelly’s America Live show is within that block of time that Fox News insists is dedicated to objective news shows, not opinion shows. But when Kelly could not explain to guest Alan Colmes why it was so important to use the term “radical Islam,” she struck back by suggesting that Holder is more interested in advancing his racial agenda than in protecting America. Which proved – among other things – that Kelly’s real game was to malign Holder, not explore the importance of the term “radical Islam.” With video.

The fact that Colmes was the guest, as opposed to a terrorism or Islamic expert, was another signal that Kelly was using the segment to politicize national security.

Kelly’s opening question to Colmes was a taste of her “objectivity” to come. “Why not just say it… (Holder) clearly would rather stick a hot poker in his eye than admit that radical Islam may have been... a factor.”

Colmes questioned why Holder (or Obama) must “say these words.” Colmes went on to argue that “radical Islam” is not an appropriate term because terrorism is not part of the Islamic religion. He asked, “Why don’t we say that when somebody bombs an abortion clinic or when Scott Roeder, who kills an abortion doctor, is ‘radical Christianity.’ Why isn’t there a great movement to say, ‘you’ve got to call it ‘radical Christianity?’”

Kelly was obviously flummoxed and unable to answer the question. So she accused Colmes of moving off topic and demanded that Colmes answer her question, even though he already had.

“It is not Islam any more than killing an abortion doctor is not Christianity,” Colmes repeated. “…To attach the words of those religions to that act is wrong.”

“I see,” Kelly said, but she clearly didn’t. “So we shouldn’t acknowledge that the people who killed three thousand people on 9/11 were radical Islamists,” she said snidely. “It’s unfair to the terrorists.”

No, it’s unfair to Islam, and that’s not in our national interest, points that Colmes made implicitly. “Look, we have soldiers, American men and women, dying in Islamic countries to help people of the Muslim faith… We have to rebuild Iraq which is now in a Muslim country, something it wasn’t under Sadaam Hussein and we should not be renouncing an entire religion.”

Kelly got shriller. “How is acknowledging the true ideology of those who are behind these attacks… affecting in any way our relationship with actual Muslims and people who are true followers of Islam?”

And how does calling it “radical Islamic” or not affect the war on terror? She never explained.

Colmes continued. “I don’t see people going, ‘You know, we’ve got to call these people who bomb abortion clinics ‘Christians.’ We have to make sure we get that word ‘Christian’ in there.’ It’s religious bigotry. This (terrorism) is a political ideology, not a religious ideology… They are misusing Islam and to use the word ‘Islam’ to try to apply to them because it satisfies our need to demonize a religion is absolutely wrong and bigoted.”

Instead of answering, Kelly attacked Holder by “asking” why, if he was so careful not to use the term “radical Islam,” he had called Americans “’a nation of cowards’ on the subject of race.” Funny, how Kelly just happened to pick a racial attack against Holder. “Not so careful when it comes to condemning Americans,” she sneered, suggesting that Holder puts racial issues and the feelings of terrorism ahead of the interests of the United States.

The discussion got quite heated after that as Kelly moved on to attack Holder further, revealing a surprising amount of anti-Holder sentiment from someone who's supposedly an objective host - and a surprising inability to argue the merits of the case for using the term "radical Islam" that she seemed to think so important.

After being thoroughly out-argued by Colmes, Kelly closed by saying, “Alright, well you heard it here first. If you use the term ‘radical Islam,’ you’re smearing and you’re apparently a bigot.” I don’t know that everyone who uses that term is a bigot. But this was just one more indication that Kelly may be.


Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »